Re: speed, size, time
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/06/04
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: speed, size, time"
- Previous message: mountain man: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Floyd Baker: "Re: speed, size, time"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: speed, size, time"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: speed, size, time"
- Reply: Martin Hogbin: "Re: speed, size, time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 15:50:07 GMT
"Floyd Baker" <febaker@olm1.com> wrote in message
news:lkooj016makn5ntcochcrfgajuvb6as71i@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:12:12 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
| <goatNOSPAM1@hogbin.org> wrote:
|
| >"Floyd Baker" <febaker@olm1.com> wrote in message
news:o8bjj0tc02e5nf0uomai1f87udq9cf0v7g@4ax.com...
| >>
| >>
| >> When an object increases in speed, during acceleration, does the
| >> object 'shrink' in size, relative to a motionless observer.
| >
| >It would be measured to have shrunk.
|
| Ok. That's good.
No it isn't. It is stupid nonsense. Actually, it is a lie. You being lied
to.
Hogbin is a liar.
|
| >> Once the object arrives at the intended velocity, and stops
| >> accelerating, does its size stop reducing relative to the observer?
| >
| >When two bodies are in constant relative motion, each
| >will measure the other to have shrunk.
LOL!
"You are shorter than me."
"No, I'm taller than you!"
"Are to!"
"Not!"
"My dad is bigger than your dad!"
"My dad can beat up your dad!"
"Can't!"
"Can to!"
and so on.
Jeez, the whole world is in constant relative motion, and the only thing
that
has shrunk is the dried out sponge that Hogbin uses for a brain.
| Now I guess I need to be sure of what your saying.
He's saying your computer screen is smaller than his because it's in
constant relative motion to his, and anyway his dad is bigger than your dad.
Just go out and buy a bigger monitor and prove he's wrong.
It's those term
| meanings again... <g> Do you mean, as in two elevators rising at
| the same rate in the upward direction? Maybe different speeds? Maybe
| different directions?
The idiot thinks his elevator stretches when pulled upwards and yours
doesn't. Also his ruler gets stretched so that he can MEASURE you as
shorter, or so he claims.
|
| >> Does an object shrinking occur in all directions, as opposed to only
| >> the direction of travel?
| >
| >An object is measured to shrink in the direction of (relative)
| >travel only.
See, he said "measured" again. He thinks his ruler must have stretched.
|
| Is it unable to be measured laterally?
|
| >> If not, I would like to know why.
| >
| >It would lead immediately to irresolvable paradoxes if
| >each object measured the other to have shrunk
| >laterally.
| I don't see these paradoxes.
He's got an irresolvable paradox anyway. What's the difference?
|
| I know I shouldn't because I don't understand, and I am certainly
| naive being here, but please tell me what is proven that says that
| what I believe is wrong. I like to test my own thinking and I am
| hearing several things here. It seems there is disagreement even with
| people here.
Well, you see, some people come out of the theatre believing the woman
was sawn in half and then rejoined. Hogbin is one of them. Other's enjoy the
show but know it was just an illusion.
|
| It seems to me that if everything has their *own sized* atoms,
| depending on its particular velocity through space and because the
| speed of electrons is a constant, it would all come out nicely.
|
| At least to the extent I've taken it. There's the disclaimer but
| please stay with me.
|
| Why would it NOT happen as I see it?
Oh, you want to see a miniature woman sawn in half as well, huh?
|
| It is not totally reasonable to expect that the electrons will seek a
| lower level orbit as the nucleus speeds up. Why not? Else wouldn't
| matter self destruct when moved to quickly?
|
|
| Or another thought, is it possible that a nucleus can be moved forward
| on its own, leaving all electrons behind? It would then pull electron
| negative charges from all electrons it passes as it travels, as needed
| to balance its own charge? That's bizarre but I guess possible given
| enough available electrons. I'll be willing to forget that idea if
| no one says it's possible. <g>
|
|
| Does not light speed determines true size and distance in the
| universe? Electrons travel at this speed and so atoms must be sized
| according to their speed through space that affects the distance they
| must travel around the nucleus. Why is that not necessary? Why
| would the atom not become smaller?
|
| Again I ask, and I am not arguing to make *MY* point. I just need
| several answers, or the same one in different ways, for my head to
| vector in on a correct understanding.
|
| To me, orbits would need to be adjusted larger or smaller in the atoms
| of any object's particular change of velocity in space. All things
| would then be relative and come into one understandable relationship
| applicable to all aboard that object and elsewhere, including
| differences in time. It seems that the term space time continuum
| would be totally applicable... Not that I understand what refers to
| now you know? <g>
|
| Suppose we here on earth have 'normal' sized atoms. A ship speeding
| away has shrunk because of acceleration, and therefore has further to
| travel, and longer to do it in. We are shining a light out from
| space in their direction and we see it passing them and matching the
| speed of their own headlight beaming out ahead of them. Except that
| theirs is probably shifted cause they're compressing it doppler wise?
|
| As they accelerate, their time slows, they think they're traveling
| faster than they are. We see them speeding up to say a tenth the
| speed of light. Their instruments tell them they are doing 90
| percent of the speed of light. Of course the numbers here are for
| example only.
|
| It certainly does appear that the distance a spaceship could travel
| forward in the time an electron has to travel around its nucleus once,
| would be minuscule..., but as the spaceship approached c the electron
| would have to move in the direction of travel a distance equal to its
| own orbit... It couldn't do both, eh? If the ship did attain c,
| the electron would spend ALL its time moving in the direction of
| travel, not revolving in orbit at all, and time stops then, for them.
|
|
| >> If yes, is the shrinking the result of the object's atoms all
| >> shrinking?
| >
| >It is better to consider that space itself is measured to
| >have shrunk. Therefore everything shrinks.
|
|
| If one atom of a near light speed spaceship shrinking can cause
| infinity to shrink, we're in trouble... :-) But I understand the
| measurement would take place within the spaceship and they only
| perceive it to shrink. Because their time is all wrong, because they
| are speeding.
|
| While atoms may be able to compensate for speed for a while, by
| shrinking electron orbits according to me, there would be a limit
| there. There has to be a non linear aspect somewhere..., somewhere
| between where the atom can retain the action of an atom, to when time
| stops and the electrons give up moving around the orbit at all?
|
| If that were to happen btw, what *could* happen. What happens to the
| individual + and - charges if time stopped. Even if only on the
| spaceship, when time has stopped and there is no movement present to
| balance them out? With no centrifugal force on the electron if
| nothing else?
|
|
| >> Do they shrink because the electrons find a longer path, a spiral path
| >> instead of a circle, that is brought about by the acceleration or
| >> deceleration?
| >
| >No. Spirals are completely irrelevant.
|
| I just can't see how they can be... If the sun started to move away
| from its position in space, wouldn't we be in trouble? On average?
|
| >> Other than worm holes, warps, or whatever, am I in the ballpark?
| >
| >Not really.
| >
| >Martin Hogbin
|
| I'm in the outfield I read. :-)
|
| Please humor me a bit longer if you must, to respond, but I'm just
| trying to understand things using analogies instead of the math I
| never took.
|
| Thanks.
|
| Floyd
Ah, you didn't take math.. shame. The fun part is figuring out how the trick
is done. Since it is done with math, you need math to figure it out. But
I'll give you the solution anyway. You may someday be able to understand it.
Hogbin won't, he'll ignore it.
The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.
For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.
5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.
7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
Androcles.
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: speed, size, time"
- Previous message: mountain man: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Floyd Baker: "Re: speed, size, time"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: speed, size, time"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: speed, size, time"
- Reply: Martin Hogbin: "Re: speed, size, time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
